Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. Sinn Féin will oppose the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. There are two parts to the Bill, one of which deals with pensions. Overall, that part would be welcome but the fact that its provisions are tied to changes in the Bill to the one parent family payment means my party will oppose it.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister, Deputy Burton, that seven years of age is far too low to cut the payment. However, what age does the Minister consider acceptable for a child not to have access to adequate child care? If the Minister believes this, why does the provision still remain in section 4? The simple solution is to remove it with immediate effect. This morning the Tánaiste spoke about reform of the social welfare system. This Bill is not about reform. It simply seeks to attack not only lone parents but also the children of lone parents.

There appears to be some confusion and inconsistency within the Labour Party. Less than two years ago, the Fianna Fáil Government reduced the cut-off age for lone parent payments to 14 years. Along with Sinn Féin, the Labour Party objected to this, on the grounds that the necessary supports and services were not in place. Deputy Róisín Shortall outlined the Labour Party position:

The problem is that the Bill is not about activation. It is about cutbacks and the optics of doing something about long-term welfare recipients. How can one call it activation when, in the first instance, there are so few jobs of any description available. That is the big issue. The jobs just aren't there.

I find myself in agreement with most of what Deputy Shortall had to say on that occasion of the introduction of the legislation by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government. That reality has not changed, but now a Labour Party Minister is dropping the cut-off age further to just seven years. Where do they think these seven year olds will go after school? Out-of-school child care provision is practically non-existent.

We are emerging from a decade of child protection scandals but the Government parties have learnt little. The Government clearly believes that a child does not need parental care and supervision beyond the age of seven. The arguments being made are that this will cut the expense of the social welfare bill. Realistically, how will it do this? These measures will ensure that people who have part-time jobs will be forced into full-time employment. Unfortunately, these full-time jobs do not exist. There are not 90,000 full-time jobs available over the next three years. Lone parents who are now in part-time employment want to ensure they remain there. They want to support their families as best they can. They want to both earn and learn.

I have been appalled by the comment that becoming a lone parent is a lifestyle choice. I assure the Minister and others that becoming a lone parent is not a lifestyle choice. More than 35% of lone parents are in that situation due to the fact that their relationship or marriage has broken down. This country, unlike others, does not impose a statutory maintenance system. This is a huge mistake which needs to be addressed immediately. There is legislation in place that would ensure that the maintenance recovery unit could collect money and that people who abandon their children would be liable to pay their way. This, of course, has not been done. Instead, the Government has taken the decision to attack lone parents and their children.

The Bill follows in the wake of the 2012 budget which was a targeted attack on lone parents. It made cuts to their earnings disregards, payments while on CE schemes and qualified child payments. The cuts to back-to-school allowance, rent supplement and fuel allowance also have a disproportionate impact on the children of lone parents.

A 2011 report published by the UCD school of social justice demonstrates that even during the so-called boom years after-school child care provision remained sparse. The report states that between 2002 and 2007 the proportion of households using non-parental child care for pre-school children increased from 42% to 48% whereas the comparable proportion for primary school children remained unchanged at 25%. If anything, as the recession deepens the availability and affordability of these services is getting worse, not better.

The Government is continuing the policies and ideals of the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government. I expected more from Labour. These attacks on lone parents are due to the fact the Government presumes they will not fight back. I can assure the Minister that she is wrong. The Bill reveals the attitude of the Government to the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. Reports have recognised, time after time, that lone parents are the most disadvantaged in our society. It is a disgrace that the Government continues to target them.

Likewise, we are resolutely opposed to the cut to jobseeker's benefit contained in the Bill. The affected jobseekers have had their hours reduced as a consequence of the recession but the Minister is blaming them for their predicament. She claims they are nervous about entering the world of full-time work, despite economists of all colours unanimously agreeing that any growth in full-time job opportunities is a long way off.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say she will not proceed with this provision if she does not get a credible and bankable commitment from the Government on the delivery of such a service. I see no sunset clause in the Bill, because there is none. There is nothing to suggest the Minister will not proceed with these changes. Unless the Minister can guarantee that such supports are in place she should not proceed with the relevant provisions in any shape or form.

See this speech in context